this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2023
3 points (58.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43893 readers
1207 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I have noticed that when I looked at some discussions on age-of-consent that the arguments are often built on metaphysics. (For example, the idea that sexual development (or puberty) has definite, exact stages; and start or end dates.)

However, the dialectical materialist conception opposes metaphysics; so this would mean that if the age-of-consent is built on metaphysics; then it will not correspond to material reality.

This would include the start and end of sexual development in people; some people self-initate or end puberty much earlier (like at 8 or 9 years age) than what is traditionally expected (12 to 13 years age); and the rate of puberty onset has changed with the material conditions^[J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006 Nov; 60(11): 910–911. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.049379 PMCID: PMC2465479 PMID: 17053275] (as dialectical materialism predicts).

So, if a person ends puberty (sexual development) much earlier than the age-of-consent and has gotten clear sex education; then should they still be not allowed to have sex until that age? What about adults having late puberty? What about people who never went through puberty, like some people with Kallmann Syndrome?


Since the conclusion of sexual development allows a person to have sex without sustaining damage, with good and proper sex education (as is education that doesn't lead to rape), that would mean the person would be able to safely have sex, even if they have late puberty or end puberty earlier than expected. This is the opinion I've developed from my rethinking on this topic.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] peeonyou@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I'd rather you just keep this on 4chan or whatever pedo site you come from tbh.

[–] Amicchan@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Never said prepubescent sex was good. It's still bad because it damages the child.

[–] Helix@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

So you don't see an issue with rape and taking advantage of teenagers after puberty, just before?

You should really work on your wording if you didn't mean that. It's hard to backpedal when you use language where it's possible to interpret it that way.

[–] Amicchan@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I have issues with rape and abuse; of course I want to be and am against that.

Yeah, maybe I should have worded that more clearly to say "sexual abuse" is still bad.

[–] Helix@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Then you should also define what sexual abuse means to you. Because someone using their power dynamic to coerce a minor into sex isn't sexual abuse to some people, while it is to me, for example.

[–] Amicchan@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Because someone using their power dynamic to coerce a minor into sex isn’t sexual abuse to some people, while it is to me, for example.

That is sexual abuse to me.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)